Another_mage has it right about the NPC/cohort/henchman needing to be flesshed out. I always wrote up NPCS and Cohorts like I would a PC, full stats, weappons, magic items, quick spell list, etc.
|
For the most part I allow PCs to run their animal companions/familiar/eidolon with little interference on my part. At the table I'm too busy RPing the NPCs of the world to track a player's abilities.
That said at the table my players to tend to be:
Druid: "I'm going to cast cure light wounds on the fighter. I order Mr. Fluffy to maul the hobgoblin." (Rolls Mr Fluffy's attacks)
Summoner: "I shoot at the goblin with a crossbow, and have my Eidolon stand between me and them."
It's assumed the PC is giving directions to his cohort. I've not had to veto anything so far, but if it comes up I will.
|
I have played in enough games that I have seen both camps in action. Essentially I believe if it is fun, then that is the right way at that time.
I have run in a game where I had two henchmen and the GM never developed them, never remembered their names, and they were essentially non-factors. They were boring and a waste of time effort and expectation. I have played in a game where the GM developed a familiar with an amazing personality that I would never have even considered. The familiar was never a "yes" man and always seemed to be getting me in trouble (which was awesome!).
I have seen players run their pets as extensions of themselves, essentially as nothing more than additional class abilities. I have seen a druid make his owl companion fly/swim to the bottom of a lake (amid protests by the players and GM). But I have seen players develop cohorts and followers as their own people, with their own agendas (sometimes running counter to the goals of the party). These cohorts have led to interesting and fun adventures as they lived their own lives.
I don't think there is a right and wrong style. It depends upon the real life people sitting at the table. If the GM can do a great job then that is great. If the player can do a great job then that is great. If the GM or the player cannot do it well, then the other SHOULD take control of the character and use it to make the game that much more fun for everyone involved.
BTW- just for the record it is really really really freaking cool and awesome to find out that the cohort you have been running around with for over a year is actually an escaped murderer from a major city who has had a religious conversion (hence the good alignment- and ummm I never bothered to check the alignment of the cohort anyway I just assumed he was good) and is attempting to mend his ways but the bounty hunter that has been after him (and now me for aiding and abetting) is not quite so forgiving... GM's idea obviously
|
Well, with the summoner, his eidolon IS him. Kinda like a psycrystal, it's basically a part of the summoner and derives much of it's personality from said summoner. The possibility of the eidolon actually being a part of his immortal soul has never been discussed. Yes, the eidolon is an aspect of a greater outsider-the summoner.
Afterall, not very many people are confident enough in themselves and believe in themselves enough to summon a creature that is, in essence, an extension of his/her very being.
That's just my 2cp, though. I mean, why else would a summoner be allowed to target the eidolon with spells that only target "you"?
I actually think that, for the most part, if the PCs have spent resources on it (gold, feats, class feature) they should get to run the character in combat and in general, so long as they aren't abusing logic when doing so.
In other words, I can almost see an animal companion or a Leadership gained cohort being willing to die for their "friend," but its hard to see a paid mercenary doing the same.
In combat, the PCs should run an NPC right up until they break the logic of what that character would do, then the GM should move in and correct the situation.
Out of combat, the NPC should be run by the GM. Combat is much more of a stress, but the GM should definitely be interjecting comments based on the beings personality. Now, if the NPC is being paid to carry the PCs gear, and isn't being abused, but is asked if he thinks they should go into the next level of the dangerous dungeon, he may say he thinks its a bad idea, but if ordered to go to the next level, he should probably do it, again, so long as the PC that hired him isn't sending him in first to a dark room or using him for "soft cover" all of the time.
There are very few cases where a summoned creature, familiar, or animal companion are likely to break free of a character, so unless that rare corner case happens, the creature should be under the control of the PC, but that doesn't mean that if the PCs ask the creature its opinion, it shouldn't have one or that it should parrot its master's opinion. They won't rebel against their master, but that doesn't mean they can't express their opinion when asked for it.
I'm not saying that doing it differently than this can't work. I'm just saying that for most GMs, the extra creatures in combat are a pain, especially when trying to remember what creatures on each side should or shouldn't know about one another and how that influences their tactics. On the other hand, when you get the chance to show some personality, thats a good time to expand things from a RP perspective.
If the druid starts spending his "advancements" on his animal companion to make his hunting dog intelligent so he doesn't have to worry about animal commands, but then asks what the dog thinks, I think you have a great RP moment when the dog tells the druid how much he loves the druid and would never disobey him, but how scared he gets when he has to run in alone to fight X or Y and how much it hurts to get pummeled by the last encounter the party had. A sad, completely loyal dog given the chance to discuss his lot in life might really pull some heart strings with the right player.
There are some variant ways to play that game that, with the right group, might work out great. GMs running all NPCs is one of those things that I think can work, but might not work, with everyone. I also think that things like PCs not rolling any dice at all, just describing their actions, can work great in a horror game, for example, but in practice might just upset some players that feel like they have too little control, to use another option as an example.
Given that I tend to draw in some diverse gamers that may not be with the group for more than a year or so since I tend to run my campaigns in the FLGS, it works best for me to follow the path of least resistance.
|
|
I cut my RPG teeth on AD&D 2nd. As a GM for Pathfinder, I tend to follow the policy given above. I find it is the best balance between GM workload, Player expectation, and overall game fun.
+1
I let the players order around their NPCs (familiars, animal companions, cohorts, etc), particularly in combat, but I retain veto power as DM. I treat companions as half mine, half theirs.
I tend toward what would probably be considered more of the restrictive side of things, in that I don't let the player build their own cohort. Instead, I sit down with the player and discuss the sort of cohort they are looking to attract. Then I let them pick from existing NPCs already introduced in the campaign. If they don't like any of the options, then I'll work with them to introduce a few more choices until they find someone they like.
For the most part, I'll introduce a cohort as "race/class/general description" and a general idea of what the cohort is capable of, and then gradually turn more control over to the player as the campaign progresses.
I actually like a 3rd method not mentioned by the OP. Henchmen, animal companions, cohorts etc are run by other players at the table who are not the player they belong to. So if you have a tiger animal companion, I as dm am not running them, another player at the table is. I do this for 2 reasons.
First as a dm I have alot on my plate, and I try not to add to it, but I still want to create some separation between the player and the animal companion or cohort. Another player will do this fairly effectively as obviously they are not of one mind with the original player. They may not go all out roleplaying the character, but it will have its own personality and hopefully it's own goals.
Second, characters loaded with cohorts and other similar extras will tend to slow things down. More attacks means more time. And if one player has a summon, an animal companion and their own turn to take, the other players may get bored, or annoyed that the other player gets to do so much more. This helps even things out in that department I have found.
|
|
As a DM I try to take a hands-off approach to cohorts as far as battle, gear, mechanics. I roll enough dice as it is. However, I generally role-play the cohort's personality and would override anything idiotic (e.g. from KODT, Mad Willy throws himself in front of the dragon's breath to save me), unless there's a compelling reason why.
As Kolo notes above, I also like to spread the love if one player has too many followers or summoned creatures by having other players agree to run the combat for the creature/NPC. No one likes one player dominating 75% of the encounter.
I try to be flexible, and I think the reason there isn't a hard and fast written rule is so it can be left up to the GM and players, as opinions on this do vary so widely. It's not just a GM issue either; I've seen some players insist on controlling their companions and players who really want their GMs to play their companions so they can get some roleplaying in with them and not have two-sided conversations.
Generally, I prefer companions of any kind to be handled by the player, PARTICULARLY in combat. I've got enough to track and I have a terrible habit of forgetting players have companions at all (I've gotten better about this over time, but that's where my inclination is). I have no problem jumping into the role of the companion if the player needs someone to talk to, and more importantly, if the companion could/should provide information the player/PC doesn't know.
As regards Leadership, I had a player recently take the feat. I've been creating the cohort and followers, but they are the player's to control tactically. I do RP the cohort and follower the PC has picked up so far when it is important I do so (both of them have had information that I needed to provide the party).
While I statted up the cohort, I certainly did it with the player's feedback in mind (hopefully he feels that way!) and the player had the right to offer suggestions and revisions when I handed him the final sheet. (The player is playing a cleric of Death and wanted a scary dark mount to ride. After looking at various options, I suggested he have his character take leadership and get the mount as a cohort. I told him I'd take the Nightmare template and adapt for alignment, flavor, and power level so he knew what I was doing and liked the idea.)
I think with Leadership, it's different from a animal companion ("To me, my bears!") or familiar where there's some specific choices being made by the PC summoning/bonding with the creature. Leadership you're starting to attract people because of your great presence or reputation or what have you; you can't always completely choose who is going to decide you're worth following around. I still absolutely believe however that the cohort/followers (especially the cohort) should be designed generally with the GM and player cooperating.
I've played in other games where the GM took great delight in roleplaying other people's companions/familiars (we even managed to get a sort of "group familiar" that assisted the party in small ways), but he still had the players control their own companions in combat (though he played the group "familiar" himself then as well). I'm fine with it either way so long as the player isn't trying to build broken combinations, and the GM isn't being tyrannically restrictive.
Speaking as a longtime player with his first-ever cohort, I'm still getting used to the balance between myself and my GM (Deathquaker). In combat, I'm in control, though so far I'm just using my cohort as a mount for the benefits of height and movement rate. We haven't taken my first follower into battle yet and I don't plan on doing so either, he's too fragile for the kinds of things we fight.
Out of combat, I'll run the NPCs as necessary. While I have all the appropriate stats, they both know things I don't know, and that's when the GM steps in. Though she does have to remind me to check on my cohort once in a while;)
|
I used to rely heavily on random charts to produce personalities for cohorts/henchmen...I used to do it for intelligent weapons too..which gave mr a sword that had hematophobia once..that was fun
DMwellard Where di you get that table it sounds awesome!!
As for my 2 CPon the matter ; for Eidolon DEFINATELY PC controlled, Anicmps PC in combat DM out of it, Summoned? PC Familiar PC in cmbt, DM when interacting w/ PC or others. Cohrt/hench DM for interaction w/ PC's only.